Sunday, May 31, 2009

Under the radar, Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced bill #S424 to provide "permanent resident status" for alien partners of American homosexuals as if they are married -- just one more assault . . .

The Senate Judiciary Committee [on] Wednesday will hold the first congressional hearings on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill that would allow lesbian and gay citizens to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.

The witness list for the hearing has not yet been finalized by Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the committee and is the lead sponsor of the bill . . .

The White House has also signaled support for including gay and lesbian couples in the [immigration] reforms.

"The president thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country. We will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Bay Windows in March.

Trustees voted 3-2 on Tuesday to adopt the Safe Schools curriculum, which supporters say will help children of gay parents feel welcome at school and help end anti-gay teasing and bullying on the playground.

The lessons also aim to provide a safe environment for children to learn, as well as to offer a framework for teachers to break down stereotypes and teach kids about different types of families.

Opponents of the curriculum said it would undercut parents' rights to teach their children about relationships and sexual orientation, and that it pushed a political agenda without addressing ways to help other groups who may be singled out at school.

. . . Trustee Niel Tam, who voted yes . . . noted that the district spent two years developing the lesson plans on gay families.

The mandatory program, officially titled "LGBT Lesson #9," was approved May 26 by the Alameda County Board of Education by a vote of 3-2. Students from kindergarten through fifth grade will learn about "tolerance" for the homosexual lifestyle beginning next year.

The curriculum is in addition to the school's current anti-bullying program and is estimated to cost $8,000 for curriculum and training.

Parents will not be given an opportunity to opt-out of lessons that go against their religious beliefs. Some parents are threatening to sue the school board and mount a recall. Opponents presented a petition with 468 signatures from people who don't want the homosexual lessons in the curriculum.

The district's legal counsel recommended against giving parents an opportunity to opt out of the lessons, claiming only health or sex education topics require opt-out provisions . . .

In a rare rejection of an appointment by the Texas governor, the Senate Thursday ousted Don McLeroy as chairman of the State Board of Education, with his supporters claiming the Bryan dentist was the victim of his strong religious beliefs.

McLeroy is a devout Christian who believes in creationism and the notion that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. He has steadfastly argued that Texas students should be taught the weaknesses of evolution.

Democrats argued that McLeroy’s leadership has polarized the board, and that he has disregarded experts in the shaping of science curriculum standards and English, language arts and reading standards for 4.7 million Texas public school children.

“If this isn’t about evolution, if this isn’t about what the Bible teaches, what is it all about?” asked Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, referring to opposition to McLeroy.

“As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay--call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.

“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.”

But Princeton University law professor Robert George, who is also a top constitutional scholar--and a Catholic academic--said that Kmiec’s idea would do away with the public role of marriage--and banish it to the religious “ghetto.”

“That is a terrible idea,” George said. “The idea that the state would abandon its concern for the institution of marriage, that it would treat marriage as a purely religious matter, is I think a very bad one.”

“Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George said.

While the drubbing focused on the nation's most prestigious Roman Catholic school, the criticism also served as a warning to all Catholic colleges and universities about the potential for opposition to their own policies [such as Loyola, Georgetown . . .].

"This is an impact that is likely to be felt for some period of time," said Richard Yanikoski, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, which is based in Washington and represents more than 200 U.S. schools. "It's certainly — but one doesn't know exactly how — helping to shape public perception."

Tensions have erupted regularly among the schools, bishops and Catholic activists since 1967, when Catholic academics released the "Land O'Lakes Statement on the Nature of the Contemporary Catholic University." The leaders affirmed the colleges' role of serving the church, but declared some autonomy from the Catholic hierarchy, so that the schools could be guided by professional leadership, not just the religious orders that created them.

The ECUSA “deposed” 61 priests and deacons in California's Central Valley area because they joined with former Bishop John David Schofield as he aligned with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone due to the ECUSA's abandonment of Scriptural authority.

National leaders of the Episcopal Church have ousted 61 clergy who aligned with a former bishop in California when he broke with the national church in a dispute over the Bible and homosexuality. Former Bishop John-David Schofield led the Diocese of San Joaquin to become the first full diocese to secede from the U.S. denomination in 2007. Four years earlier, Episcopalians consecrated their first openly gay bishop, setting off a wide-ranging debate within the church and upsetting conservative congregations.

He and the various priests and deacons objected to the Episcopal Church’s ordination of gays to the priesthood among other things, "refusing to recognize the authority of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and of the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church," as the church puts it.

The clergy who have been fired had six months to deny their abandonment, recant, or renounce their ministry in the Episcopal Church, according to the diocese.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

America needs change. Yet the change we need will not come from Washington or Wall Street. It must come from God. It must begin with God's repentant people praying to Him for the change He requires and the change we need.

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.(2 Chron. 7:14)

America is in desperate need of spiritual healing, say conservative Christian leaders, who are organizing a day of mass prayer and repentance on behalf of the nation.

The “Call 2 Fall” event will take place on July 5. “The day after America celebrates her independence, it's our goal to have eight million Christians declaring our dependence on God,” the Family Research Council says on its Web site. “The Call 2 Fall is a simple but powerful commitment to get on our faces before the Lord, asking Him to reshape our lives and renew our land.”

“Only He can quiet the storms and turn the hearts of this country--and our culture--toward Him. Only He can restore a respect for life, marriage, and faith in the halls of power. And only we can ask Him to,” the FRC says.

The event also has historical precedent: The First Continental Congress called for a day of public humiliation, fasting, and prayer throughout the Colonies on July 20th, 1775, just after war broke out with England, the FRC noted.

"The intent of the campaign is to stimulate discussion of religion and its place in our society," said Charlie Sitzes, a spokesman for the Indiana group who with help from the American Humanist Association has collected more than $10,000 in private donations to buy the ad space in Indiana and Illinois.

Sitzes regrets that the ad campaign – inspired by similar signs in Europe – has encountered so much opposition in his home state. British ads sarcastically consoled passengers with the message: "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Last November, the American Humanist Association plastered buses in the nation’s capital with pictures of a man in a Santa suit asking: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake."

Monday, May 25, 2009

Even when the mainstream pollster is asking the same question to the public over an extended period of years, the abortion apologists still deny the clear pro-life trend in American opinion -- because . . . to the liberal, there's never black-and-white, or right-and-wrong, but only shades of dingy, murky gray (the friend of the deceiver).

Last week’s Gallup result on abortion . . . contrary to much of what has been reported or surmised, the poll does not necessarily indicate a marked shift in Americans’ views on this highly complicated issue.

In advance of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame last weekend, Gallup released a poll showing that for the “first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”

. . . abortion remains a deeply complex issue; one for which views are far more nuanced than politically charged terms like “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” This poll question creates absolutes, when in reality, abortion really represents an issue in which there aren’t any absolutes for many (if not most) people. [What a ridiculous statement! Even Obama said the opposite at Notre Dame.]

In the recent Gallup poll, respondents were also asked if they thought abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances. Twenty-two percent said it should always be legal, while about as many, 23 percent, said it should never be legal. The majority, 53 percent, said it should be legal in certain circumstances.

To add further confusion, other polls that have been released on abortion lately show differing results . . .

All this underscores just how vexing the abortion issue can be, as well as how conflicted the public really feels about it.

In a new national survey conducted by the Polling Company for the pro-life organization Americans United for Life, a majority of Americans say they know someone who has had an abortion. A majority of those surveyed also believe that abortion hurts women.

Asked if they personally knew someone who has had an abortion, some 68 percent said they know a woman who had one while 30 percent said they did not.

Of those who knew a post-abortive woman, 55 percent described her abortion as a negative experience while just 33 percent described it as a positive one and 12 percent either didn't know or would not answer the question.

Asked to think of abortion and women in general, the survey asked respondents if they thought abortion "is almost always a good thing for a woman or almost always a bad thing for a woman."

The survey found 53 percent say abortion is almost always a bad thing and a tiny 13 percent said abortion is almost always a good thing for women. Another 21 percent said neither and 13 percent didn't know or didn't answer the question.

Just 3 percent of those polled said women would face none of the five potential problems after an abortion and another 3 percent either didn't know or did not answer the question.

New Hampshire supporters of same-sex marriage are scrambling to regroup after the House, in a stunning vote Wednesday, rejected a bill that would have made the Granite State the sixth in the country to allow such unions.

The bill, which would have accommodated Governor John Lynch's demands for expanded protections for religious organizations and employees who do not approve of gay marriage, was defeated by two votes. Instead, the House asked the Senate to negotiate a compromise. Another House vote is expected in early June.

Lynch, a Democrat who personally opposes same-sex marriage, said last week he would support a bill with religious protections. Two previous bills that deal with same-sex marriage have already passed the Legislature this session. Those measures have yet to be sent to the governor and cannot be amended.

Lynch will be huddling with lawmakers to ensure that his proposals are included in the legislative compromise, said Colin Manning, the governor's spokesman.

That confidence was echoed by the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, an advocacy group. "I think both houses will approve the work of the conference and the governor will sign the bill."

Sunday, May 24, 2009

As thebirth rates decline in Europe, and among the wealthiest population groups, America's richest people met secretly to plan world population control. Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.”

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

“Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said [in February].

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

The Empowering Spirits Foundation said its challenge was filed Wednesday at an Internal Revenue Service office in Dallas. The San Diego-based group said the diocese is engaging in political activity by collecting signatures for the referendum, violating IRS rules applying to nonprofits.

Leonard Cole, a Portland attorney who specializes in tax and nonprofit issues, suggested that the church's involvement could put it at odds with IRS rules that restrict lobbying by tax-exempt nonprofits.

IRS policy allows the diocese to participate in the campaign and help collect signatures, said Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the diocese. He rejected the IRS challenge as a "bogus attempt to sidetrack the campaign."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will enact a new policy providing homosexual State Department employees and their partners the same benefits as married employees, according to Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, who received an advanced memo from Clinton.

The Bush administration had eased some [State Department] rules, opening up some training to same-sex partners, but had resisted efforts to treat homosexual partners the same as married couples. Thus a wide array of benefits were denied to same-sex partners, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, employment opportunities at the embassy, visas and diplomatic passports, mail privileges and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity.

In the memo, Clinton said: "At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do."

State Department officials said the memo to the gay and lesbian organization indicates the direction Clinton hopes to go, but the final policy document is still in draft form and requires additional consultation within the department.

Earlier this year, nearly 2,200 government employees involved in foreign policy issues signed a letter to Clinton calling on the government to give equal benefits to same-sex partners.

According to The Oklahoman, the bill requires the abortionist to report to the state Health Department the age, marital status and education level of the mother; the number of her prior pregnancies; the reason and method for the abortion; and the nature of the mother’s relationship with the baby’s father.

The bill also requires the reporting of the method of payment, the type of medical health insurance coverage, the cost of the abortion, and whether an ultrasound was given.

H.B. 1595 passed the Senate on Friday by a vote of 35 to 9. The bill had passed the House by 88 to 6.

[There] is the growing concern that selective abortion of baby girls isn't only happening in Asia but in the U.S. as well.

According to the Boston Globe, a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that examined the ratio of boys to girls born to Asian-American families in the U.S. demonstrated couples that welcome an oldest daughter become increasingly likely to abort future daughters to get the son they seek.

After two oldest daughters, the study found, the likelihood of the third child being a son leaped 50 percent higher than the norm, evidence, the authors wrote, "of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage."

And while the Globe also cited a Zogby Poll that showed 86 percent of Americans believe sex-selective abortions should be illegal, the paper pointed out that they're not.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

A San Diego, CA couple say authorities appeared at their front door and interrogated them concerning their group Bible study habits and warned they will be fined if they continue such Christian activity without formal registration.

The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.

"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"

The pastor's wife answered yes.

She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.

And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."

The Illinois General Assembly is expected to approve a measure next week that would legalize civil unions, according to an LGBT activist.

Rick Garcia, [homosexual activist and] political director for Equality Illinois, said [today] he's "absolutely" expecting the full state House and the Senate to pass a civil union measure either Tuesday or Wednesday. The bill has support from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D).

The House Youth and Family Committee, chaired by Rep. Greg Harris, who's gay, intends to attach an amendment legalizing civil unions to a "shell bill" that's already been approved by the Senate, Garcia said. If the full House votes in favor of the legislation, the bill would be sent to the full Senate within hours for a vote of concurrence.

Garcia said Illinois lawmakers often use "shell bills" to pass legislation expediently. He said it's necessary to legalize civil unions through this method because the legislative session ends May 30 and the approach limits the time that opponents of civil unions can lobby lawmakers.

"We get it out of the House and then senators only have a few hours of being beat up by our opponents rather than three days or a long weekend," he said. "Since there is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it in one day, that's what we're going to do."

Under current Illinois law, public schools are not required to teach sex ed, but if they do, they must stress abstinence as the preferred option until marriage.

However, in a PowerPoint presentation titled "Sex Education: The Real Deal," a state-appointed teen panel cites one 2007 survey that found nearly half of Illinois high school students reported having had sexual intercourse.

Other state data show the rate of Illinois teen births and at least two sexually transmitted diseases have risen since 2005 -- just as federal funding for abstinence-only classes has been ballooning.

The Student Advisory Council concludes that "abstinence-only is not working, so Illinois needs to take a stand and help our youth." The group wants sex ed to be mandatory and cover sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptive options.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday stayed an appeal in a years-long dispute over whether the [California] state Constitution allows public land to be leased to organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel . . . said it would await action by the U.S. Supreme Court before Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 04-55732, can go forward.

The plaintiffs, who identify themselves as being agnostic or gay, want to evict the Desert Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts of America from Camp Balboa in San Diego’s Balboa Park and the Youth Aquatic Center on Fiesta Island, also in San Diego, for which the scouts pay nominal rent to the city.

The case involves a series of projects by the Boy Scouts of America in San Diego. The private organization has provided millions of dollars in improvements to public facilities in exchange for their use but faces being banned because homosexuals and lesbians who never even were exposed to the work claimed their feelings were hurt.

The organization has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and now two major public interest law firms have joined them in their request.

"Radical homosexuals are attempting to use every means possible to destroy the Scouts despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized their First Amendment right to have a morally-based policy excluding homosexual involvement," said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, which worked with the the Alliance Defense Fund on the friend-of-the-court brief.

At issue in the case are leases from the city of San Diego allowing the San Diego Boy Scouts to build and operate campgrounds and an aquatic center on city property for their use and the public's.

. . . "There were no religious symbols at the facilities."

. . . Thomas More Law Center and Alliance Defense Fund lawyers . . . argue the court's "permission ideological standing rule" now creates a new threat to faith-based organizations that choose to cooperate with the government in establishing public benefit programs by subjecting them to lawsuits from people who never even "observed" anything.

A cross erected in the remote Arizona desert by U.S. veterans in memory of their lost World War I buddies has become the focal point for an effort by the American Civil Liberties Union to eradicate references to Christianity from America's heritage.

. . . the attack on the cross in the desert . . . now needs a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or faces demolition.

The Mojave Desert Memorial Cross has stood for more than 75 years in honor of America's lost soldiers. It was erected in 1934 by World War I veterans who saw the image of a doughboy in the shadows on the stone hillside and wanted a place to remember their lost trench-mates from the big war.

But the ACLU, representing a man from Oregon who has alleged he might drive on the desert road in Arizona and might be offended by the cross, has won lower court rulings that the cross must cease to exist.

The cross was covered in a bag when the court's ruling was released, and later encased in a plywood box so that no one could inadvertently see the representation of Christianity, officials said.

Attorneys with the Liberty Legal Institute, which calls the case a "microcosm" of the trend of hostility towards veterans' memorials in the U.S, say the impact will reach many more memorials than just the one in Arizona.

The specimen, designated Darwinius masillae, is of a monkeylike creature that is remarkably intact: even the contents of its stomach are preserved. The fossil was bought two years ago in Germany by the University of Oslo, and a team of scientists began work on their research.

But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years.

All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may. But this campaign is only the latest example of the scientific media blockbuster . . .

A book, a movie, a press release, news reports, television specials and an interactive website – all launched today – have converged in a multi-media exclamation, set to shout to the world that the "missing link" in man's evolution has supposedly been found.

The Times of London reports that some scientists have joined in criticism of the media coverage, arguing it is wrong for a discovery to receive such heavy publicity before other researchers can evaluate it.

Dr. Jonathan Wells, author and biologist at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, helped WND take a closer look at the science vs. hype debate.

"When you listen to Darwinists, they claim their theory is as well established as gravity," Wells told WND. "If that were really the case, we wouldn't be getting these startling announcements that we finally found the proof that we need. There wouldn't be any controversy. This would be like someone running up and saying, 'Stop the presses. I just saw another apple fall from the tree; Newton was right!' In the evolutionists' own framework, it's nonsense. It demonstrates their theory is not as well established as they claim."

Limiting dating violence prevention to students in hetereosexual relationships further discriminates against students who are already vulnerable to bullying, depression and self-doubt, the advocates said. They urged senators to remove the reference.

The measure requires school districts to create dating violence prevention policies for sixth- through 12th-graders and print the policies in school handbooks or Web sites by the summer of 2010. South Carolina consistently reports high rates of domestic violence incidents.

Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said he pushed for the change to "preserve traditional values in South Carolina's public schools," and not allow for teaching about same-sex relationships.

The law will take effect July 26 unless opponents seeking to repeal it can collect enough signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot.

They will then have about 60 days — until July 25 — to collect 120,577 signatures. If they are successful, the law would be suspended until voters decide the referendum.

As of Monday, there were 5,395 registered domestic partners, representing every county in the state.

The signing comes three years after the state Supreme Court ruled against 11 gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry in Washington and upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

Charlene Strong, a Seattle [lesbian] . . . said while she is thrilled with the advancements, she's eager for the next step: reversal of DOMA.

As anti-abortion demonstrators protested outside and a few hecklers shouted inside, Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades. The audience at this Roman Catholic institution cheered his message and drowned out protesters, some of whom called him a “baby killer.”

While several hundred people attended an anti-abortion Mass, about 100 abortion opponents demonstrated against the president’s visit at the edge of campus, shouting back and forth with a smaller number of abortion rights demonstrators.

As Mr. Obama departed, his motorcade passed a few dozen protesters shouting at an intersection and holding signs that showed fetuses and said things like “Notre Dame spiritually sold out.” Others approaching campus for the ceremony were likewise greeted by photographs of mangled fetuses.

With mortarboard in hand, Robert Kessler, 22, a graduating senior, wandered among the protesters and shook his head. “Some of these pictures are grotesque, and I don’t want them to be part of my graduation,” Mr. Kessler said. “If these groups wanted to make a difference, they could have better used their money on homes for unwed mothers.”

Alameda school officials had high hopes the new elementary school curriculum would teach respect and help reduce bullying related to gay and lesbian individuals and families.

The controversy revolves around six 45-minute lessons, one each year from kindergarten through fifth grade, with year one addressing the harm in teasing and the fifth-grade topic focusing on sexual-orientation stereotypes.

Alameda Unified's attorneys say parents would not be allowed to keep their children from taking the courses because the lessons don't include health or sexual education, a position opponents say is absurd.

Elementary students are being targeted with proposed curriculum on homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in Alameda Unified School District.

This multisexual curriculum is part of AUSD’s “school safety” initiative. All students should be safe at school, but promoting safety and promoting multisexuality are not actually the same thing. Unfortunately, the social agenda first seen in San Francisco and Los Angeles continues to spread.

In kindergarten, being “welcoming” to all classmates is equated with supporting multisexuality. The first grade lesson plan trains children “to identify what makes a family” and teaches about same-sex couples. Third grade vocabulary includes “two moms” and “two dads.” Fifth graders are required “to identify stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

In one document, AUSD lists 12 multisexuality-focused organizations as community resources. These include the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education (glsen.org), Gay-Straight Alliance Network (gsanetwork.org), and Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center (lyric.org).

As the pastor of First Congregational Church Alameda, United Church of Christ, I am grateful to the Alameda Unified School District for actively responding to our teachers' requests for a curriculum that would give them the tools and resources they need to foster respect for all the people in our neighborhood by putting a face on same-gender parented families who have been invisible in K-5 curriculum until now.

. . . the Rev. Laura Rose, is personally a beneficiary of the [California] Supreme Court decision; she married her life partner in mid-August. "We were the first legal same-gender wedding at our church," she said, noting that there have been more since then.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

The British Association for Adoption and Fostering told would-be gay adopters to not worry about society - 'any critics are retarded homophobes' . . . [the] attack was published in a BAAF guide to adoption for homosexual couples.

Its insulting description angered senior MPs and former Cabinet Ministers, Roman Catholic and Church of England leaders.

It also offended disability campaigners, who have been trying to discourage the use of the word 'retarded' for years. Whitehall has banned the word for civil servants.

Author Patricia Morgan, who has published a study of gay adoption, said: "It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption. They just go in for abuse. They do not appear interested in evidence about the outcomes for children. And it is a disgusting phrase to use."

Christophe Guilmoto of Descartes University in Paris, France, and his colleagues analysed population data collected by the General Statistics Office of Vietnam since 2000, plus two surveys which assessed birth rates in 2006 and 2007.

In 2001, the sex ratio in Vietnam was close to the biological norm of 105 male births per 100 female births, but this reached 111 to 100 by 2007.

Guilmoto also analysed statistics of access to prenatal ultrasounds, and found that there had been a tenfold increase in availability between 1998 and 2007.

It is associated with gonorrheal pharyngitis - a sexually transmitted infection of the tonsils and back of the throat that immediately causes symptoms, she noted, and now is associated with mouth HPV infections that are silent "yet may lead to oral cancer 10 to 20 years later."

[Dr. Maura L.] Gillison from The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues explored whether sexual behaviors were associated with the odds of oral HPV infection in 332 adults and in 210 college-aged men. They found that 4.8 percent of the adults and 2.9 percent of college-aged men had oral HPV infection.

Among adults, the odds of oral HPV infection were significantly elevated among current tobacco smokers and among individuals who reported having either more than 10 oral or more than 25 vaginal sex partners during their lifetime.

Similar risk factors applied to the college-aged men. For them, having at least six recent oral sex or open-mouthed kissing partners were independently associated with increased odds of developing oral HPV infection.

Activist judges' ruling in favor of recognizing out-of-state homosexual adoption may result in overturning the will of voters for Florida's constitutional amendment passed last year, and possibly point toward nullification of the federal Defense of Marriage Act

Florida must recognize gay couples' adoptions that were granted in other states even though its laws bar granting such adoptions, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A trial court erred when it wouldn't recognize a former lesbian couple's adoptions that had been completed when the women lived in Washington state, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously. Florida is the only state that prohibits all gays from adopting, but the judges said the U.S. Constitution requires it to give "full faith and credit" to the actions of other states.

While living as a couple in Seattle, Kimberly Ryan and Lara Embry each gave birth to one child. Each then adopted the other's child as the second parent. They moved to Sarasota and then split up, originally agreeing to share custody.

Ryan then became engaged to a man and cut off contact between her biological child and Embry, saying that under her new Christian beliefs she didn't think the relationship was good for the child. Embry sued for custody.

The appellate court in Florida cited the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause" – which requires states to honor public acts, records and court decisions from other states – to rule that despite Florida's ban on same-sex couple adoptions, a Christian resident must share custody of her biological daughter with her former lesbian partner, because the child was legally adopted in a state that permits same-sex couple adoption.

"We have a specific federal Defense of Marriage Act that says the Full Faith and Credit Clause will not apply to same-sex marriage," [Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel] said, "but the question that comes up is, what about something that is significant to the essence of marriage or family, like adoption?

"Florida has a constitutional amendment that says same-sex marriage will not be recognized," Staver continued, "and the question is, does that apply down to adoption? If not, then can [homosexual advocates] avoid a frontal attack on marriage, but still piecemeal the underlying essence of marriage and bring it in through the back door?"

"Once you use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to mandate enforcing adoption, you can then enforce child custody, child support, visitation – you are treated just like a spouse," Staver told WND. "Once you recognize parental rights of a same-sex person or parties, then you have the same kind of spousal recognition you have within the context of marriage."

While the poll itself didn't ask about the impact of Obama, anti-abortion groups jumped on the results, pointing out that pollsters said, "It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."

Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement: "These polling results confirm a long trend: Americans are increasingly identifying with the position of protecting human life. It’s not shocking that we’re seeing stronger pro-life opinions. This trend has been steady since the early ‘90s. What is interesting is American’s shift in self-labeling to a majority ‘pro-life’ identification. Americans are now seeing through the PR-generated label, ‘pro-choice.’ Sonograms and real-life experience have deemed this label hollow. President Obama and the pro-abortion majority in Congress are in a collision course with public opinion on abortion policy. What we’re debating right now – taxpayer funding for abortion – dramatically outstrips public opinion.”

The Gallup survey gave respondents three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal and found that about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23 percent) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22 percent). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.

Most Israeli cities were not marked on screens showing flight maps to passengers on two [British] BMI-owned Airbus A320 aeroplanes. Only Haifa was identified - by its Arab name, Khefa.

BMI, which runs flights from London to Tel Aviv twice daily, apologised for the omission on Thursday and denied that there was any political agenda behind the exclusion.

The two aeroplanes were acquired from British Mediterranean Airways (BMED), a now-defunct airline that flew to several Arab countries in the Middle East, Phil Shepherd, a company spokesman, told The Jerusalem Post.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare. . . . it is illegal to deny a woman an abortion up to her 18th week of pregnancy even if her request is based on a sex preference.

The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.

Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.

The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.

Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytizing, a military spokeswoman said.

The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.

U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.

Military officials have said the bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. The soldier brought them to the bible study class where they were filmed.

Trying to convert Muslims to another faith is a crime in Afghanistan. An Afghan man who converted to Christianity was sentenced to death for apostasy in 2006 but was allowed to leave the country after an international uproar.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

"The IRS has unequivocally affirmed the right of pastors nationwide to come together as spokesmen for the Word of God, to interact with political leaders, historians and scholars in discussing the moral issues under debate within our culture and to assert their biblical responsibility to address such issues from their pulpits."

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that a foundation funded by financial backers of [Texas] Gov. Rick Perry did not violate the law by mobilizing evangelical Christians in advance of his 2006 re-election.

The IRS ruled that church congregations were "told to vote their values," but not for a specific candidate.

"This liberal attempt to intimidate pastors has backfired," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers. "Not only do pastors and churches have freedom, but now they know about it."

Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that advocates on church-state issues and filed the complaint, said the ruling will "further embolden wealthy special interests who funnel campaign money through nonprofits that want to drag churches into partisan campaigns."

In a decision that holds ramifications for churches around the country, the Internal Revenue Service found that a non-profit organization that gathered pastors to a series of public policy conferences did not violate the political entanglement laws governing its tax-exempt status.

Prompted by a complaint filed by the Texas Freedom Network, which calls itself "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right," the IRS investigated the Houston-based Niemoller Foundation for organizing during the 2006 election season six pastors briefings, which included speeches from prominent politicians and training for pastors on urging and registering their congregations to vote.

Despite charges that the foundation had therefore engaged in political partisan activity in violation of its tax exempt status, the IRS investigation found "no evidence of political intervention."

. . . said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represented event organizers: "There is now a clear IRS statement outlining these pastors' events and approving them as valid under the law."

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Institute, further explained to WND the ramifications the ruling holds for churches.

"The Niemoller Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, just like a church," Sasser explained. "So by the Niemoller activities being granted as lawful, then any church that engages in the same kind of voter education combined with voter registration drives on the moral issues of the day is perfectly fine with the IRS regulations, according to the IRS itself."

Sasser reiterated, "The whole point was to educate everyone about the important social issues and get them to go vote and register others to vote, and the IRS said this was perfectly okay."

"Be careful what you hear from these liberal organizations," Shackelford said in a statement.

"They sound very confident and file many complaints, yet none are found valid even by the IRS."

". . . from 1954 to the present, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should alleviate unfounded fear."Churches may also distribute objective voter guides that address the candidates’ views on a broad range of issues.

Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Pastors can urge the congregation to become involved in the political process, urge them to register and vote.

In summary, while liberal groups seek to silence pastors and churches, I would encourage pastors to throw off their muzzle and pick up a megaphone. It’s time pastors and churches became the moral conscience of the community.

"Is there no non-politically correct ACLU lawyer or other staff worker or anyone in the ACLU affiliates around the country or any dues-paying member outraged enough to demand of the ACLU's ruling circle to at last disavow this corruption of the Constitution?"

Why is the press remaining mostly silent about the so-called "hate crimes law" that passed in the House on April 29? The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in a 249-175 vote (17 Republicans joined with 231 Democrats). These Democrats should have been tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment, equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment), and the prohibition of double jeopardy (no American can be prosecuted twice for the same crime or offense). If they had been, they would have known that this proposal, now headed for a Senate vote, violates all these constitutional provisions.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court in the Roman Catholic Church . . . [said] that no matter what good positions a politician may hold on other issues it is never justified to vote for him if he supports abortion, euthanasia or same-sex marriage.

The American bishop who heads the Vatican’s supreme court slammed President Obama today for pursuing an “anti-life and anti-family agenda” and called the University of Notre Dame’s plans to honor him this month “the greatest scandal.”

At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday, Burke garnered frequent applause for castigating Notre Dame, Obama, and Catholics who stray from the church’s social teachings.

Dozens of Catholic bishops have criticized Notre Dame, the nation’s top Catholic university, for inviting Obama to deliver its commencement address on May 17, and planning to grant him the degree customarily given to graduation speakers.

“In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life,” Burke told a crowd gathered at the Hilton Washington.

“Apparently, a number of Catholics in public life have been so convinced,” he continued.

“How often do we hear Catholic legislators who vote in favor of anti-life and anti-family legislation claim that they are personally opposed to what the legislation protects and fosters, but that they as public officials may not allow religious beliefs to affect their support of such legislation?” he asked.

“How often do we hear fellow Catholics supporting candidates for office, who are anti-life and anti-family, because of political-party loyalties or for reasons of other policies and programs supported by the candidate, which they deem to be good?” he continued.

To read the full text of Archbishop Burke's keynote address, CLICK HERE.

A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man describes his struggles with being gay in an upcoming memoir about his decades serving the church.

Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, said in an interview Monday that he wrote about his sexual orientation because he wanted to be candid about "how this came to life in my own self, how I suppressed it, how it resurrected again."

Called "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop," the book is set to be released in June.

Weakland stepped down soon after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.

The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. He was a hero for liberal Catholics nationwide because of his work on social justice and other issues . . .

Weakland, a Benedictine monk, served in Rome as leader of the International Benedictine Confederation and also worked on a liturgy commission for the Second Vatican Council, which made reforms in the 1960s meant to modernize the church.

Monday, May 11, 2009

. . . white supremacist hate groups . . . have an outsized effect based on the way they have been able to mainstream their propaganda and conspiracy theories . . . [via] conservative politicians' and pundits' . . . claims that Obama is a socialist.

Note that the source for these accusations is the Boston Globe, owned by the New York Times, and nearly bankrupt (of both money and integrity).

While the inauguration of the first black president has lessened racial tensions for most Americans, it has set off a wave of violence on the white supremacist fringe, with anti-hate groups attributing six recent killings - including the ambush last month of three Pittsburgh police officers and the fatal shootings last month of two Florida sheriff's deputies - in part to anger over President Obama's election.

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Movement, said the number of white extremist groups in the United States has increased by about 50 percent since 2000, and activity has sharply increased in recent months. The day after Obama won the presidency, he said, activity on the two most popular white supremacist websites overwhelmed computer servers.

Such groups, they said, tend to feed on racial resentment, economic deprivation, and anger toward government, but they have focused their wrath on Obama.

White extremists seem particularly upset at the belief Obama will curb their access to assault weapons; gun shops nationwide have reported a huge increase in sales of handguns and rapid-fire, large-capacity rifles, and the FBI reports that applications for required background checks for gun owners have soared compared with last year. Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, has said that the administration will try to reinstitute the ban on military-style assault rifles that expired in 2004 during the Bush presidency.

Question: How many Americans buying guns would it take to cause "a huge increase in sales" of guns? A "white supremacist fringe" element certainly couldn't create a blip in gun sales; thus, the Boston Globe is obviously implying that most gun buyers are part of their definition of the "white supremacist fringe."